Kid builds nuclear reactor in parents' garage [Archive]

negativ

15th January 2008, 10:35 AM

Ladewig

16th January 2008, 05:14 AM

22-year-olds are kids?

. . . . . . .
Representatives with the FBI and the Texas Department of State Health Services' Radiation Control Program took away the man's science equipment on Friday – but not because he was doing anything dangerous or illegal.

Rather, the man's parents, with whom he is living, asked that the equipment be removed, officials said.

I find it strange that government agents can take away things that are not illegal or dangerous.

Cuddles

16th January 2008, 07:38 AM

My first thought is that this is almost exactly the same as a story that did the rounds years ago, so I very much doubt it's true.

I find it strange that government agents can take away things that are not illegal or dangerous.

It was his parent's house and they asked for it to be taken away. Assuming it happened at all, that is.

Abooga

16th January 2008, 07:51 AM

If I recall corectly Asimov wrote a short SF story with a very similar theme. The corollary being that as technology becomes more available, soon anyone could build a nuclear device, so a nuclear catastrophe becomes an unavoidable reality as time passes. The difficulty in obtaining the reactive materials is the only thing that may keep this from happening, I guess...

RecoveringYuppy

16th January 2008, 07:55 AM

The claims in the story are pretty mundane. He had some Americium, probably from smoke detectors, and some uranium ore. And hadn't gotten them to do anything interesting.

Americium is available in sub microgram quantities in smoke detectors. You'd need gram quantities to be dangerous to yourself and kilogram+ quantities to build a reactor.

Lensman

16th January 2008, 06:18 PM

22-year-olds are kids?

A great many act like they are.

technoextreme

16th January 2008, 07:57 PM

My first thought is that this is almost exactly the same as a story that did the rounds years ago, so I very much doubt it's true.

It was his parent's house and they asked for it to be taken away. Assuming it happened at all, that is.
I remember two other scenarios that resemble this one. The first one is chronicled in the book The Radioactive Boyscout. The second one is an offhand account of the worlds weirdest scavenger hunt where someone actually made a nuclear reactor.Americium is available in sub microgram quantities in smoke detectors. You'd need gram quantities to be dangerous to yourself and kilogram+ quantities to build a reactor.
You have to realize that in The Radioactive Boyscout he managed to get enough Americium from smoke detectors that it was extremely dangerous. If wikipedia is correct enough to turn a house into a superfund site.

Hamradioguy

16th January 2008, 08:28 PM

He was a long way from anything close to a nuclear reactor. Now with enough graphite and enough uranium of the right type he might have eventually come up with something that possibly could work...or more likely not.

First responders are understandibly a bit nervous whenever thay get called to a private residence and discover there's something very radioactive therein. (This actually happened up here a few years ago when a physics professor had a chimney fire and told responding firefighters to be careful around his basement because of the radioactive material he had stored there.)

Can't blame the man's parents in this case for asking that the equipment be removed.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th January 2008, 08:46 PM

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080110_mo_reactor.dc3e082.html

When people mess around with home-made nuclear reactors, don't they always suffer some sort of accident and end up becoming evil super-villains?

How does:

"No charges will be filed because it is legal to possess the ore he had" and

"Representatives with the FBI and the Texas Department of State Health Services' Radiation Control Program took away the man's science equipment on Friday"

relate to:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Brave New World!

chran

16th January 2008, 11:45 PM

Way to read the thread there, bucko!

JEROME DA GNOME

16th January 2008, 11:48 PM

Way to read the thread there, bucko!

This one that is not in the humor section with this phrase in the OP: "becoming evil super-villains?"

False advertising if you wanted non-serious conversation, bucko.

chran

17th January 2008, 12:06 AM

JEROME DA GNOME

17th January 2008, 12:09 AM

Riiight.

No, I was talking about the part where his parents wanted it removed from their home.

Article IV specifies unreasonable searches and seizures and if it's done by request of the home owner it can hardly be unreasonable, now can it?

So, if you live with a roommate you can call the police to confiscate the legal property of your roommate?

:boggled:

chran

17th January 2008, 12:13 AM

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

dannagain

17th January 2008, 07:03 AM

If your roommate owns the deeds to the house and you don't then yes. But they'd have to have a good reason like, oh i dunno, he's building a bloody nuclear reactor in my garage' something like that would work. probably.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th January 2008, 08:48 AM

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

The police in America can not confiscate property without legal cause.

Monza

17th January 2008, 01:36 PM

So we are still a few years away from someone entering an atomic bomb in a high school science fair (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/)?

geni

17th January 2008, 01:44 PM

So we are still a few years away from someone entering an atomic bomb in a high school science fair (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/)?

Yes because they would probably object to the explosives. Building a gun type fission device isn't that hard (but then building a reactor isn't that hard) createing the material to put in them is.

Might be tricky to fit one in your gargre unlesss you have rather a large garage still if you have a spare 17th century building around why not give it a go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_reactor

chran

17th January 2008, 06:06 PM

The police in America can not confiscate property without legal cause. Oh, is THAT what the 4th amendment means?! Wow.

Charlie Monoxide

17th January 2008, 07:39 PM

Maybe he was building one of those Iranian reactors ....

Charlie (the kind for peaceful purposes) Monoxide

JEROME DA GNOME

17th January 2008, 08:20 PM

Oh, is THAT what the 4th amendment means?! Wow.

But you said they could. :confused:

Are we using different meanings for the same words?

Do you think that in America a roommate can call the police to have a legal possession confiscated?

Married2aWooster

17th January 2008, 08:24 PM

0.2 micrograms of Americium per smoke detector
60 Kg of Americium to reach a minimal critical mass with proper geometry

5 smoke detectors = 1 microgram
5,000 smoke detectors = 1 milligram
5,000,000 smoke detectors = 1 gram
5,000,000,000 smoke detectors = 1 Kilogram
300,000,000,000 smoke detectors = 60 Kilograms

If refining pitchblende into uranium and then enriching it to fissile levels on a budget were feasible, every rock throwing youth in the West Bank would be doing it. So, other than minor contamination issues for the parents, not a crisis here.

soylent

18th January 2008, 04:31 AM

I bet even dropping a flourecent light bulb has bigger implications as far as health hazzard is concerned.

Cuddles

18th January 2008, 05:09 AM

Do you think that in America a roommate can call the police to have a legal possession confiscated?

This is irrelevant. It was not a roomate, it was the owner of the whole property. Since it was the parents, I doubt he was even paying rent, in which case he couldn't possibly have any legal argument against it being taken. Even if he were paying rent, a landlord almost certainly has the right to remove, or request the police to remove, anything potentially dangerous from a property.

dannagain

18th January 2008, 08:33 AM

This is irrelevant. It was not a roomate, it was the owner of the whole property. Since it was the parents, I doubt he was even paying rent, in which case he couldn't possibly have any legal argument against it being taken. Even if he were paying rent, a landlord almost certainly has the right to remove, or request the police to remove, anything potentially dangerous from a property.

Exactly. Like a 'no pets' rule. Except it's a 'no building nuclear reactors in my garage' rule. Really not sure what your problem is with this Jerome.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th January 2008, 08:39 AM

This is irrelevant. It was not a roomate, it was the owner of the whole property. Since it was the parents, I doubt he was even paying rent, in which case he couldn't possibly have any legal argument against it being taken. Even if he were paying rent, a landlord almost certainly has the right to remove, or request the police to remove, anything potentially dangerous from a property.

The police can not seize property without legal cause.

The owners of the property(home) can ask that any property(nuclear reactor ;)) be removed by the owner of the property, yes.

These are vastly different circumstances.

Spindrift

18th January 2008, 08:42 AM

The police in America can not confiscate property without legal cause.

They didn't confiscate anything. It was given to them by the owners of the house where the property was. Now if Junior wants his stuff back, he can probably get it back, but I don't think Mom and Dad will let him bring it back home.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th January 2008, 08:43 AM

They didn't confiscate anything. It was given to them by the owners of the house where the property was. Now if Junior wants his stuff back, he can probably get it back, but I don't think Mom and Dad will let him bring it back home.

No one has the right to give away another person legal property.

Hindmost

18th January 2008, 08:52 AM

geni

18th January 2008, 11:27 AM

FYI: Americium can never reach critical mass. Although it will fission occassionally, it will absorb neutrons 100 or 200 times more often--I can't remember exactly. It could not sustain any chain reaction.

glenn

Depends on the isotope. You are probably thinking of 243 which has a critical mass as high as 280KG. Americium-242 has a more reasonable critical mass.

ponderingturtle

18th January 2008, 02:22 PM

The police can not seize property without legal cause.

The owners of the property(home) can ask that any property(nuclear reactor ;)) be removed by the owner of the property, yes.

These are vastly different circumstances.

No which one happened here?

ponderingturtle

18th January 2008, 02:24 PM

No one has the right to give away another person legal property.

So I can park on your lawn and you can not have my car towed. You have no right to give my car away like that after all.

Married2aWooster

18th January 2008, 02:44 PM

Depends on the isotope. You are probably thinking of 243 which has a critical mass as high as 280KG. Americium-242 has a more reasonable critical mass.

The isotope most commonly found in smoke detectors in 241, which indeed has a critical mass in the "60 Kilogram" zip code. I stand by my post as written.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th January 2008, 03:10 PM

So I can park on your lawn and you can not have my car towed. You have no right to give my car away like that after all.

If you are living in my home, yes. Then I can ask you to move the car, or leave the home. I can not have the police confiscate your car.

Hindmost

18th January 2008, 03:23 PM

Depends on the isotope. You are probably thinking of 243 which has a critical mass as high as 280KG. Americium-242 has a more reasonable critical mass.

Interesting

I was basing this on making a reactor. The absorption cross section for americium is much larger that the fission cross section for241. For 242, the fission cross section is large, but so is the absorption cross section and it depends on whether it is in the metastable state.

So, a reactor is not going to go critical for 241 or 243. A chain reaction would be possible with 242.

However, it appears you can make a weapon out of 241 or 243 in theory...so I am mistaken..thanks for the info.. (however, I wouldn't bet on it working)

glenn

Married2aWooster

18th January 2008, 03:42 PM

Interesting

I was basing this on making a reactor. The absorption cross section for americium is much larger that the fission cross section for241. For 242, the fission cross section is large, but so is the absorption cross section and it depends on whether it is in the metastable state.

So, a reactor is not going to go critical for 241 or 243. A chain reaction would be possible with 242.

However, it appears you can make a weapon out of 241 or 243 in theory...so I am mistaken..thanks for the info.. (however, I wouldn't bet on it working)

glenn

Actually there are several techniques to tweak the fast non-leakage probability and achieve a self-sustaining reaction using 241.

Hindmost

18th January 2008, 04:00 PM

Actually there are several techniques to tweak the fast non-leakage probability and achieve a self-sustaining reaction using 241.

I couldn't find a neutron yield for 241, but it doesn't seem plausible unless the cross sections are much different for fast neutrons and there isn't much resonance capture. It would be a very tough design.

glenn

Married2aWooster

18th January 2008, 04:35 PM

I couldn't find a neutron yield for 241, but it doesn't seem plausible unless the cross sections are much different for fast neutrons and there isn't much resonance capture. It would be a very tough design.

glenn
Thermal yield = 3.24 LINK (http://www-nds.iaea.org/sgnucdat/a6.htm)

joobie

2nd February 2008, 09:45 PM

i was just reading something that reminded me of this thread...

I remember two other scenarios that resemble this one. The first one is chronicled in the book The Radioactive Boyscout.

[snip]

You have to realize that in The Radioactive Boyscout he managed to get enough Americium from smoke detectors that it was extremely dangerous. If wikipedia is correct enough to turn a house into a superfund site.

he was busted again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn#2007_law_trouble) in 2007 for stealing smoke detectors to continue his experiments.

here's his mugshot:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/1_August_2007_david_hahn_mugshot.jpg

Creekfreak

2nd February 2008, 10:58 PM

Looks like your average crack head to me the scaring on his face is common of a creak head .
thats just what we need a bunch of methed out dumb asses trying to build bombs .

technoextreme

3rd February 2008, 03:29 PM

Looks like your average crack head to me the scaring on his face is common of a creak head .
thats just what we need a bunch of methed out dumb asses trying to build bombs .
I would imagine the fact that he turned his parents house into a toxic wastedump might be more of a reason.